KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to DotMac4
Re: Can't trust the union
Of course each side is looking out for their financial interest, just as each side is (so I'm agreeing with you).
I like the proposal. How about working with VZ to do this, since VZ plainly want to. How about letting VZ take the $600 million (!!) write-off but putting $300 million into the proposed fund? Compromise?
By 'telecommunications providers', does the quoted article include Fairpoint? So the states could use the cash to subsidize Fairpoint's infrastructure expenses. Sounds reasonable...and much like the subsidies AT&T received when they faced large infrastructure costs.
KM |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
2 edits | I would be against that in saying why shouldn't Verizon get to use the same laws that other people and companies get. Why should they be denied a right off that they're legally entitled to?
While Verizon shouldn't get preferential treatment (eg free tax money from Penn taxpayers for fiber than never happened) they shouldn't get unequal penalties either.
If they're entitled to the $600M in write-offs then they should get it. Some people seem to think that a write-off is free tax money when it's not. They just get to pay that much LESS in taxes and virtually every tax payer gets to take tax deductions.
Personally I don't think there shouldn't be any corporate taxes since it just ends up being consumers paying the bill and higher taxes results in less companies wanting to do business here thus less employees (and trickle down effect) who do pay taxes. But that is a debate for another topic.
There should be no "subsidies" at all. I would say let local residents vote to pass a bond for deployment and if the bond passes and that local money is invested the municipality representing those taxpayers repaying the bond take partial ownership in their investment.
Locals pay (other taxpayers win), locals benefit (locals win), locals get more control (locals win). And if locals get a say perhaps they could insist on continuing CWA benefit levels should subscribers wish to be so charitable.
Seems under a plan like that everyone wins. |
|
anonononon
@verizon.com
| So, it makes it ok for big corporations like that should be able to use loop holes that should be nonexistent. Google "Reverse Morris Trust", shame on the pols and the courts for letting this loophole exist. Both customers and workers will lose if this sale goes through. This use to be an all (VT,NH,ME) deal, but since Vt wants no part of this, now they are contemplating a two state deal....What's that tell you! |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| No, just that both the CWA and Verizon are spouting propaganda to get their way and neither can be trusted to provide us the whole truth.
Never take the word of someone who has a vested interest in the outcome cause they'll say only what makes their side look right and omit whatever makes their side look wrong.
That's true not only for this situation but everything. Always ask what is their motivation. In the CWA vs Verizon, the motivation has nothing to do with what is good for the consumer...only what is good for the CWA or what is good for Verizon. |
|
